### Appendix E

Cargo Handling Equipment Yard Truck Off-Road Emission TestingE - i 

## T ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS

Contents Page

I. Summary .........................................

................................................... ...............E-1

II. Background .....................................

................................................... ...............E-1

III. Emission Testing ..............................

................................................... ..............E-3

IV. Yard Truck Test Matrix .........................

................................................... ..........E-4

V. Results and Discussion ..........................

................................................... ........E-7

Tables and Figures

Table E-1: ISO 8178 Recommended Continuous Gaseous Sampling Analyzers......E-3 Table E-2: Weighting Factors for C1 Type ISO 8178 T est Cycles.............................E-4 Table E-3: Engine Make and Size Breakdown .......... ................................................E-5 Table E-4: Dominant Inventory Groupings for Baselin e Selection.............................E-6 Table E-5: Yard Truck Test Matrix..................

................................................... ........E-6 Table E-6: Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions F actors for Yard Truck Engine Testing with CARB Diesel and Emulsified Die sel.........................E-9 Table E-7: Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions F actors for Current Off-road, On-road and LPG Yard Truck Engines ...... .............................E-10 Table E-8: All Yard Truck Modal Data ...............

................................................... ...E-12

Figure E-1: Cummins Model Years Breakdown.......... ................................................E-5 Figure E-2: Modal Emissions Factors for Baseline Ya rd Truck Engine Testing with CARB Diesel..................................

................................................... E-8 Figure E-3: Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions Factors for Yard Truck Engine Testing with CARB Diesel and Emulsified Die sel.........................E-9 Figure E-4: Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions Factors for Off-road, On-road and LPG Yard Truck Engines ................ ..................................E-10E - 1



### I. Summary

The Air Resources Board (ARB), along with the Port of Los Angeles, funded a demonstration program to obtain information on the baseline emissions and promising control strategies for port and intermodal rail yar d trucks. Six yard trucks were tested including three in-use yard trucks equipped with me chanically controlled off-road engines (1997, 2000, and 2001 MY), a newer (2004 MY ) yard truck with an electronically controlled off-road engine, a newer (2004 MY) yard truck with an electronically controlled on-road engine, and a yar d truck with an LPG engine.

The test fuels included CARB diesel and emulsified diesel for the three mechanically controlled off-road engines, low-sulfur (LS) diesel for the newer electronically controlled off-road and on-road engines and liquid propane gas (LPG) for the LPG engine. All six engines were either Cummins 5.9L or 8.3L, since thi s make in these two engine sizes represent the largest share of the port and intermo dal rail yard truck inventory. To directly compare the engine emission levels in an o ff-road duty cycle, all testing was done using a steady-state 8 mode test cycle, simila r to the non-road C1 certification cycle. Weighted emission factors, in addition to in dividual modal data, are presented for each engine test.

Results of the baseline testing of the three in-use mechanically controlled engines indicate that there can be a two fold difference in emission factors for total hydrocarbon (THC) and particulate matter (PM) between the engin es when tested with CARB diesel. Within the two C8.3L models, the 1997 MY engine had lower modal emissions (as shown in the individual modal data) for THC, NOx an d PM than the 2001 MY.

Comparison testing using CARB diesel and emulsified diesel for the three baseline engines showed an overall increase in total hydroca rbon emission factors of 10 to 33 percent for the emulsified diesel. The reductio ns in NOx emission factors ranged from 18 to 22 percent for the emulsified diesel. P M emission factor reductions ranged from 17 to 53 percent.

Comparisons between the on-road certified 5.9L ISB and the off-road certified QSB using low-sulfur diesel indicated that the on-road ISB engine had lower emissions for THC, NOx and PM. Total hydrocarbons were 69 percen t lower, NOx emissions were 56 percent lower and PM was 30 percent lower for th e ISB compared to the QSB.

Emission testing on the Cummins liquid propane fuel ed yard truck indicated that both the THC emission factor and NOx emission factor wer e higher for the LPG engine than the diesel fueled on-road certified ISB engine. Th e PM levels were significantly lower for the LPG engine, compared to the ISB engine.



### II. Background

Cargo handling equipment at ports is a significant contributor to diesel PM. The most common type of cargo handling equipment is a yard t ruck. Yard trucks are also known as yard goats, utility tractor rigs (UTRs), hustler s, yard hostlers, and yard tractors. YardE - 2

trucks are very similar to heavy-duty on-road truck tractors, but the majority are equipped with off-road engines.

Yard trucks are designed for moving cargo container s. They are used at container ports and intermodal rail yards as well as distribution c enters and other intermodal facilities. Containers are loaded onto the yard trucks by other container handling equipment, such as rubber-tired gantry cranes, top picks, or side p icks, and they are unloaded the same way. Yard trucks are used to move containers aroun d a facility (yard) for moving, stacking and storing purposes.

While most yard trucks are diesel-fueled, there is limited availability of those powered by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural g as (CNG), and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Emulsified diesel fuel has also been u sed as an alternative to diesel fuel in support of voluntary emission reductions programs. Yard trucks have a horsepower (hp) range of about 150 hp to 250 hp, with most bei ng around 175 hp to 200 hp. There are approximately 2,300 yard trucks at California's ports and intermodal rail yards.

There are a number of potentially effective emissio n control strategies for off-road yard trucks to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The options that have shown the most potential are

1) purchasing yard trucks with on-road certified en gines; 2) using alternative fuels such as propane or natur al gas; 3) using alternative diesel fuels such as emulsifie d diesel; and 4) installing aftertreatments such as diesel oxidat ion catalysts.

Diesel particulate filters may not work well for ya rd trucks since engine exhaust operating temperatures may not be high enough for p assive diesel particulate filters.

To gather additional data on the operation of yard trucks and the emissions impacts of diesel PM control and NOx control strategies for po rt and intermodal yard trucks, the ARB, along with the Port of Los Angeles, funded a d emonstration program. The purpose of the demonstration program was to:

• perform chassis emission testing on in use yard tr ucks to measure baseline emission levels;

• perform chassis emission testing to evaluate the e ffectiveness of promising control strategies such as on-road engines, alterna tive fuels and emulsified diesel;

• perform data logging to evaluate the duty cycle of yard trucks to develop typical speed, temperature and engine load profiles ; and

• conduct in use emission testing for transient, con tainer handling duty cycling.

Currently, the first two components of the study ha ve been completed. This appendix includes an overview of the emission testing, a des cription of the yard truck equipment and test fuels and the test results with preliminar y findings.E - 3

Emission testing was performed by University of Cal ifornia, Riverside, Bourns College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research an d Testing (UCR CE-CERT) under the direction of Wayne Miller, Ph.D.



### III. Emission Testing

Emission Measurements

Emissions were tested for PM, total hydrocarbons (T HC), CO 2 , CO, and NOx per International Organization for Standardization Reci procating Internal Combustion Engines-Exhaust Emission Measurement (ISO 8178) Par ts 1, 2, and 4. (ISO 8178, 1996). Exhaust analysis of the gaseous components was performed using the continuous measurement methods listed in Table E-1.

Table E-1. ISO 8178 Recommended Continuous Gaseous Sampling Analyzers

Gaseous Pollutant Ambient Level Sampling Per ISO 81 78
NOx Chemiluminescence CO Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) CO2 Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) Total Hydrocarbons Flame ionization detector (FID)

Emission testing was performed using full-flow cons tant volume sampling (CVS) per ISO 8178. In the CVS method, the engine exhaust is diluted with air to maintain a constant total flow rate (air + exhaust) under all running conditions. Total exhaust (fullflow) is collected and mixed with air in the full-f low primary dilution tunnel. Particulate matter sampling is done from diluted exhaust gas. This is achieved by turbulent mixing of exhaust gases with air in a dilution tunnel. A sample for particulate measurement is drawn from that tunnel into a small secondary dilut ion tunnel, further mixed with air and collected on particulate filters maintained 52 oC, maximum. Samples for continuous gas phase measurements are drawn from the primary dilut ion tunnel. The volumetric flow rate of the dilution air and diluted exhaust gas ar e measured along with temperatures and pressures, allowing computation of the total ma ss flow rate of exhaust and mass emission rates of the sampled components.

Test Cycles

Mass emission rates were measured at steady-state c onditions for specified speeds and loads developed for off-road engine application s as listed in ISO 8178 Part 4. A test cycle includes a set of modes with a specified torque, speed and weighting value designed for specific engine uses. For a given tes t cycle, a weighted emission factor was calculated using weighted modal emission mass r ates and divided by a weighted load value. For this testing, the 8-mode C1 test cycle was selected since it is the same test cycle used for non-road EPA engine certificati on. The chassis testing was performed using a vehicle chassis dynamometer, leas ed from Johnson Power Equipment, Riverside, CA.E - 4 Table E-2. Weighting Factors for C1 Type ISO 8178 Test Cycles

Mode number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Torque, % 100 75 50 25 10 100 75 50 25 10 0 Speed Rated speed Intermediate speed Low idle Type C1 0.15 0.15 0.15 - 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 - - 0.15

Although EPA non-road certification is performed us ing direct engine testing, vehicle chassis testing was used for this phase of the prog ram. The chassis dynamometer has distinct advantages for testing in-use vehicles, th e most important of which is that we did not have to remove the engine from the vehicle. However, with chassis testing there will be additional variables (such as driveline los ses) influencing the results. With vehicle chassis testing on a dynamometer, the load is applied and measured at the wheel instead of directly at the engine. Due to po wer losses in the drive train, the engine load will be higher than the wheel load. Th e brake specific emission factors, in g/hp-hr, presented in this report are calculated us ing the load at the wheel (wHp) instead of the engine load (Hp). Therefore, the em ission factors measured in vehicle chassis testing are typically higher than those mea sured in equivalent engine testing. These losses may be different for each of the vehic les, depending on the vehicle design and drivetrain components.

In addition, modifications were made to the C1 inte rmediate test points (modes 6, 7 and 8) because the dynamometer requires a minimum wheel speed to produce sufficient wheel loading. Because off-road yard trucks are go verned to run at a maximum speed of 18 to 20 mph, at lower wheel speeds (correspondi ng lower engine speeds, 1500 to 1600 rpm), the wheel speed was too low for the dyna mometer to generate some test loads. Therefore, the yard trucks had to be operat ed at a higher wheel speed range to achieve some of the intermediate load points specif ied in the C1 cycle. This resulted engine speeds which were higher than those intermed iate speed points required in the C1 cycle for modes 6, 7 and 8. In general, the int ermediate engine speed points were increased from specified speed points of 1500 and 1 600 rpm to 1800 and 1900 rpm (See Table E-7). The weighed emission factors were calculated using the modified intermediate speed points.



### IV. Yard Truck Test Matrix

Emission testing was performed on six yard trucks. The test matrix was designed to represent the makeup of the existing fleet, evaluat e the effectiveness of using emulsified diesel, compare currently available cert ified on-road and off-road engines, and test alternatively fueled propane yard trucks.

Selection of Yard Trucks for Testing

In order to develop a representative baseline for t he yard truck test plan, the combined population of engines in the 2002 Port of Los Angel es and 2001 Port of Long Beach Baseline Emission Inventories were analyzed to dete rmine the dominant engine make, model and model year groupings. (Starcrest, 2004a and Starcrest, 2004b) TheE - 5

inventories contain a total of 1266 yard trucks. C ummins engines represented approximately 94 percent of the inventory. Since C ummins represented the largest manufacturer grouping by far, model year distributi ons were developed for the two largest Cummins engine size groups, 5.9L and 8.3L.

Table E-3. Engine Make and Size Breakdown

Yard Truck Engine Make/Size Total Number Percent of Total Cummins 5.9 liter 687 54% Cummins 8.3 liter 331 26% Other Cummins 180 14% Cat (all models) 3 <1% Detroit Diesel (all models) 57 5% Other Makes 8 1% Total 1266 100%

Figure E-1. Cummins Model Years Breakdown

Port of LA & LB Yard Trucks

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002

Model YearPercent of Total (1266)

Cummins 5.9
Cummins 8.3
Other Cummins ISC/ISB

Based on the model year (MY) breakdown for the Cumm ins 5.9L engines, MY 2000 is the most common model year at 14 percent of the tot al. Model Year 2002 is the next most common 5.9L engine size at 9 percent of the to tal. These two model years capture approximately 21 percent of the total yard truck inventory for the two ports. The Cummins 8.3L engine group represents the second lar gest engine category at 26 percent of the yard truck inventory. Model Year 1991 is the most common Cummins 8.3L engine at 9 percent of the total inventory. M odel Year 2001 is the second most common Cummins 8.3L engine at approximately 5 perce nt of the inventory. These four engine makes and model years represent 37 perc ent of the total inventory.E - 6 Table E-4. Dominant Inventory Groupings for Baseli ne Selection

Cummins Engine Model Year Percent of Yard Truck Inv entory 5.9 L 2000 14 5.9 L 2002 9 8.3 L 1991 9 8.3 L 2001 5

While the model year information shown in Table E-4 was used to guide the selection of the test vehicles, two changes were made in develop ing the final test matrix. First, a 1997 model year was substituted for the 1991 yard t ruck, since 1991 trucks were no longer available. Second, since the 2002 model yea r 5.9L was within the same tier (Tier 1) and similar in design to a 2000 model, onl y the 2000 model year was tested. The final test matrix, along with test fuels, is sh own in Table E-5.

Table E-5. Yard Truck Test Matrix

Equipment (Rated speed/HP) Model Year Baseline Diesel ULSD Emulsified

Diesel Alternative

Fuel (Propane) Cummins 5.9L 6BT (2200 rpm/174 Hp) 2000 1 1

Cummins 8.3L 6CT (2200 rpm/210 Hp) 1997 1 1

Cummins 8.3L 6CT (2200 rpm/215 Hp) 2001 1 1
2004 Off-Road Engine Cummins QSB - no aftertreatment (2500 rpm/173 Hp) 2004 1

2004 On-Road Engine Cummins ISB - no aftertreatment (2300 rpm/245 Hp) 2004 1

Cummins 5.9L Propane Fueled Engine with OEM-3 way Catalyst (2600 rpm/185 Hp) 2004 1

In-use Yard Trucks Testing with CARB Diesel and Emu lsified Diesel

All baseline engine tests were performed using curr ently available CARB Diesel fuel that meets the specifications defined in Title 13, CCR sections 2281-2282. (CCR Title 13, Sections 2281, 2282) The baseline y ard trucks were also tested with water emulsified diesel, developed to reduce both N Ox and PM, to evaluate the impact of voluntary emission reduction programs.E - 7

The emulsified diesel, Chevron Proformix fuel, is a water emulsified diesel fuel that consists of a blend of water, conventional diesel f uel and an additive package, utilizing Lubrizol’s PuriNOx technology. Small amounts of th e additive package are added to the fuel to maintain the emulsion, enhance cetane and l ubricity, inhibit corrosion, protect against freezing and prevent foaming. The water is suspended in droplets within the fuel lowering PM emissions by creating a leaner fue l environment in the engine. Also, the emulsified fuel creates a cooling effect in the combustion chamber, thereby, decreasing NOx emissions.

On-road and Off-road Engine Comparisons

A direct comparison between a current (MY 2004) ele ctronically controlled off-road engine (QSB 5.9L) and a current (MY 2004) electroni cally controlled on-road engine (ISB 5.9L) was conducted. While both these engines are certified, the on-road engine is certified with a transient on highway test procedur e. The off-road engine is certified using a non-road 8 mode (C1) steady state test proc edure. To directly compare the emission levels of both engines in an off-road appl ication, both engines were tested using the modified non-road 8 mode (C1) steady stat e test procedure described above. Low-sulfur diesel (15 ppm) was used for this compon ent of the testing to best represent proposed regulatory control strategies.

Liquid Propane Yard Tractors

Alternative fuels, such as liquid propane gas, are options available to reduce emissions from compression ignition engines. Cargo handling equipment applications, specifically yard tractors, are typically using LPG as an altern ative to diesel fuel at some terminals. Engines using alternative fuel have emission levels than are comparable or lower than new diesel engines operating on CARB diesel fuel. Currently the Port of Los Angeles has 53 LPG yard tractors in service. The test plan included one 2004 Cummins LPG fueled yard tractor. As with the diesel fueled Cum mins ISB engine, this engine is certified with an on highway transient test procedu re. To directly compare to the other yard trucks tested in this program, the LPG yard tr uck was tested using the modified non-road 8 mode (C1) steady state test procedure de scribed above.



### V. Results and Discussion

In-use Yard Trucks with CARB Diesel (baseline) and Emulsified Diesel Three in-use yard trucks were tested with both CARB diesel and Proformix emulsified diesel. The yard trucks tested were a 2000 MY Cumm ins B5.9L, a 2001 MY Cummins C8.3L and a 1997 MY Cummins C8.3L. We were not abl e to test the 1997 MY Cummins C8.3L engines in modes 6 and 7 due to autom atic shifting of the transmission. Therefore, we were not able to calculate correspond ing C1 (modified) weighted emission factors for that engine. To compare emiss ions between the three in-use trucks, modal values are shown in Figure E-2. Comp arison of the 2000 MY B5.9L and the 2001 MY C8.3L baseline weighted emission factor s show significantly different emission levels. As shown in Table E-6 and Figure E-3, the C1 weighed emissions for the 2000 MY B5.9L engine was 2.8 g/wHp-hr, 7.13 g/w Hp-hr and 1.5 g/wHp-hr,E - 8

respectively, for THC, NOx and PM. The C1 weighed emissions for the 2001 MY C8.3L engine was 0.48 g/wHp-hr, 8.49 g/wHp-hr and 0.35 g/ wHp-hr respectively for THC, NOx and PM.

Emission testing of the 2000 MY B5.9L with emulsifi ed diesel shows an increase in THC of 33 percent with reductions in NOx of 18 percent and reductions in PM of 17 percent. Emission testing of the 2001 MY C8.3L with emulsifi ed diesel shows an increase in THC of 10 percent with reductions in NOx of 22 percent and reductions in PM of 53 percent.

The variations in reductions indicate that the leve ls of reductions may be dependent on engine design and baseline engine emission levels. Results also show that for certain engine types, emulsified fuel is very effective tec hnology to reduce PM significantly, while also providing reductions in NOx.

Figure E-2. Modal Emission Factors for Baseline Ya rd Truck Engine Testing with CARB Diesel

Baseline Yard Truck PM data CARB Diesel

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50100%/RatedSpd75%/RtdSpd50%/RtdSpd10%/RtdSpd100%/IntSpd75%/Int Spd50% /IntSpdLow idleg/wHp-hr Cummins B5.9 2000 CARB

Cummins C8.3 2001 CARB

Cummins C8.3 1997 CARB Baseline Yard Truck NOx data CARB Diesel

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00100%/RatedSpd75%/RtdSpd50%/RtdSpd10%/RtdSpd100%/IntSpd75%/Int Spd50% /IntSpdLow idleg/wHp-hr Cummins B5.9 2000 CARB Cummins C8.3 2001 CARB Cummins C8.3 1997 CARB

Baseline Yard Truck THC data

CARB Diesel

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00100%/RatedSpd75%/RtdSpd50%/RtdSpd10%/RtdSpd100%/IntSpd75%/Int Spd50% /IntSpdLow idleg/wHp-hr Cummins B5.9 2000 CARB

Cummins C8.3 2001 CARB

Cummins C8.3 1997 CARBE - 9

Table E-6. Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions Factors for Yard Truck

Engine Testing with CARB Diesel and Emulsified Dies el

Engine Type Cummins

5.9L 6BT 2000 MY Cummins

5.9L 6BT 2000 MY Cummins

8.3L 6CT 2001 MY Cummins

8.3L 6CT 2001 MY Cummins

8.3L 6CT 1997 MY Cummins

8.3L 6CT 1997 MY

Fuel CARB

Diesel Emulsified

Diesel CARB

Diesel Emulsified

Diesel CARB

Diesel Emulsified

Diesel g/wHp-hr g/wHp-hr g/wHp-hr g/wHp-hr g/wHp-hr g/wHp-hr

THC 0.28 0.38 0.48 0.52 N/A See Note 2 N/A

See Note 2 THC % reduction See Note 1 -33 See Note 1 -10 See Note 1 N/A See Note 2

NOx 7.13 5.85 8.49 6.64 N/A See Note 2 N/A

See Note 2 NOx % Reduction 18 22 N/A See Note 2

PM 0.15 0.12 0.35 0.16 N/A See Note 2 N/A

See Note 2 PM % Reduction 17 53 N/A See Note 2 Note 1. Negative number indicates Increase in Tota l Hydrocarbon Note 2. A weighted C1 emission factor could not be calculated because modes 6 and 7 were not performed due to automatic transmission shifting.

Figure E-3. Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions Factors for Yard Truck

Engine Testing with CARB Diesel and Emulsified Dies el

THC and PM C1 (modifed) Weighted Emission Factors with CARB and Emulsifed Diesel

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

THC PM

Pollutantg/whp-hr NOx C1 (modified) Weighted Emission Factors with CARB and Emulsifed Diesel

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

NOx

Pollutantg/whp-hr Cummins B5.9 2000 CARB

Cummins B5.9 2000 Emulsifed

Cummins C8.3 2001 CARB

Cummins C8.3 2001 Emulsified

On-road and Off-road Engine Comparisons

Emission testing was performed on an electronically controlled 2004 off-road certified engine (QSB 5.9L) and an electronically controlled 2004 on-road certified engine (ISB 5.9L) using low-sulfur diesel fuel (<15 ppm su lfur). The modified C1 weighed emissions for the 2004 QSB engine was 0.16 g/wHp-hr , 5.54 g/wHp-hr and 0.14 g/wHp-hr respectively for THC, NOx and PM. Th e C1 weighed emissions for theE - 10

2004 ISB engine was 0.05 g/wHp-hr, 2.45 g/wHp-hr an d 0.10 g/wHp-hr respectively for THC, NOx and PM.

Comparisons between the QSB and ISB on low-sulfur d iesel show that the ISB has 69 percent lower THC, 56 percent lower NOx levels a nd 30 percent lower PM. These results indicate that the emission levels for the o n-road certified ISB engine are significantly lower than the QSB, when tested under the same off-road modified C1 test cycle.

Liquid Propane Yard Tractors

Emission testing was performed for a 2004 on-road c ertified Cummins LPG engine. The C1 (modified) weighed emissions were 0.15 g/wHp -hr, 3.58 g/wHp-hr and 0.007 g/wHp-hr respectively for THC, NOx and PM. These r esults indicate that both the THC and NOx are higher for the LPG engine, compared to the 2004 MY on-road certified ISB engine. PM is significantly lower for the LPG than either the ISB or QSB engines. Modal data for all the tests is included in Table E -7.

Table E-7. Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions Factors for Current

Off-road, On-road and LPG Yard Truck Engines

Pollutant Cummins 2004

QSB 5.9L Low-Sulfur Diesel Cummins 2004 5.9L ISB Low-Sulfur Diesel Cummins 2004 5.9L LPG

g/wHp-hr g/wHp-hr g/wHp-hr

THC 0.16 0.05 0.15

NOx 5.54 2.45 3.58

PM 0.14 0.10 0.007

Figure E-4. Average Modified C1 Weighted Emissions Factors for Off-road,

On-road and LPG Yard Truck Engines

THC and PM C1 Weighted Emission Factors for

QSB, ISB and LPG Engines

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20



### THC PM

Pollutantg/whp-hr 2004 Offroad QSB Low Sulfur Diesel

2004 Onroad ISB Low Sulfur Diesel

2004 LPG Nox C1 Weighted Emission Factors for QSB, ISB and LPG Engines

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

NOx

Pollutantg/whp-hr 2004 Offroad QSB Low Sulfur Diesel
2004 Onroad ISB Low Sulfur Diesel

2004 LPGE - 11



### REFERENCES:

(CCR Title 13, Sections 2281, 2282) Standards for D iesel Fuel, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 2281, and 2282.

(ISO 8178, 1996) International Organization for Sta ndardization . RIC Engines-Exhaust emission measurement ISO/DP 8178 Test Procedure, Part 1, August 15, 1996 , Part 2, August 15, 1996, and Part 4, August 15, 1996.

(Starcrest, 2004a) Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC. The Port of Los Angeles, Final Draft, Port-Wide Baseline Air Emission Inventory ; June 2004.

(Starcrest, 2004b) Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC. 2002 Baseline Emissions Inventory, Cargo Handling Equipment, Rail Locomotiv es, and Heavy-Duty Vehicles ; March 2004.E - 12 Table E-8. All Yard Truck Modal Data

Cummins 2004 QSB 5.9L (Capacity)

Low-Sulfur Diesel Eng Hr/Odometer Not

Available

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr gm/bhphr g/bhp-hr

Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 122.50 2507.00 0.12 0.41 5.49 827.83 0.14 75%/Rtd Spd 90.50 2492.00 0.14 0.56 4.90 944.40 0.1 6 50%/Rtd Spd 61.50 2501.50 0.18 0.87 4.89 1117.43 0. 18 10%/Rtd Spd 12.00 2500.50 1.30 4.31 18.11 3344.00 0 .42 100%/Int Spd 134.00 2202.50 0.08 0.36 5.76 730.10 0.12 75%/Int Spd 102.00 2202.00 0.14 0.39 5.11 765.07 0. 09 50% /Int Spd 68.50 2200.00 0.17 0.58 4.83 878.16 0. 09
Low idle 1.23 750.00 2.65 12.89 41.70 3591.49 0.23
C1 Emfac 0.16 5.54 0.14

Extra Data Points
Int load/IS 42.50 1500.00 0.23 0.32 7.27 805.84 0.0 4

Cummins 2004 5.9L ISB (Ottawa) Low-Sulfur Diesel Eng Hr/Odometer Not

AvailableTest Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr gm/bhphr g/bhp-hr

Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 164.50 2298.00 0.03 0.56 2.11 785.53 0.11 75%/Rtd Spd 123.50 2301.50 0.04 0.43 2.27 832.49 0. 07 50%/Rtd Spd 82.50 2304.50 0.05 0.56 2.65 958.43 0.0 9 10%/Rtd Spd 16.50 2308.50 0.47 3.54 6.65 2815.44 0. 32 100%/Int Spd 133.50 2006.50 0.04 0.51 2.06 787.58 0.09 75%/Int Spd 101.00 2003.50 0.04 0.46 2.14 810.43 0. 10 50% /Int Spd 67.00 2001.50 0.06 0.62 2.46 931.81 0. 12
Low idle 1.65 700.50 0.53 3.17 45.49 2697.01 0.10
C1 Emfac 0.05 2.45 0.10

Extra Data Points
Int load/IS 79.50 1501.00 0.04 0.40 2.62 764.06 0.0 6E - 13

Cummins 2004 5.9L LPG (Yalmar) Eng Hr/Odometer 1199.00

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr gm/bhphr g/bhp-hr

Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 133.90 2600.00 0.20 0.01 6.18 814.65 0.016 75%/Rtd Spd 99.42 2598.00 0.06 0.01 2.41 862.27 0.0 08 50%/Rtd Spd 65.95 2601.00 0.20 0.01 2.11 1069.87 0. 005 10%/Rtd Spd 12.98 2601.50 0.31 0.04 9.14 3436.44 0. 009 100%/Int Spd 116.41 1798.00 0.16 0.01 3.20 675.49 0.002 75%/Int Spd 85.93 1814.50 0.06 0.03 1.92 703.78 0.0 01 50% /Int Spd 54.95 1808.00 0.30 0.01 2.09 861.34 0. 001
Low idle 1.34 750.50 0.90 20.38 3.54 5355.75 0.034
C1 Emfac 0.15 3.58 0.007E - 14

Cummins B5.9 2000 (Ottawa) CARB Diesel Eng Hr/Odometer 12380.00

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr gm/bhphr g/bhp-hr

Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 100.92 2201.50 0.15 0.48 6.55 851.02 0.18 75%/Rtd Spd 68.95 2201.00 0.35 0.64 6.64 938.15 0.1 5 50%/Rtd Spd 45.96 2197.50 0.51 0.96 7.32 1113.45 0. 19 10%/Rtd Spd 8.99 2201.50 2.68 7.99 20.56 3749.73 1. 09 100%/Int Spd 126.40 1899.50 0.13 0.46 6.70 704.12 0.10 75%/Int Spd 101.42 1901.00 0.10 0.32 6.93 721.70 0. 08 50% /Int Spd 67.95 1899.00 0.39 0.42 6.99 794.08 0. 09
Low idle 1.01 642.50 4.50 8.78 65.57 3001.99 0.82
C1 Emfac 0.28 7.13 0.15

Extra Data Points
Int load/IS 110.42 1552.50 0.09 0.68 7.51 656.83 0. 11
<100/RS-match lubrizol 79.94 2199.50 0.37 0.52 6.89 916.10 0.16
<100/IS-match lubrizol 116.41 1898.00 0.16 0.37 6.9 3 722.75 0.09

Cummins B5.9 2000 (Ottawa) Emulsified Diesel Eng Hr/Odometer 12374.00

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr gm/bhphr g/bhp-hr

Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 81.94 2198.50 0.44 0.65 5.28 901.69 0.17 75%/Rtd Spd 68.95 2202.50 0.26 0.82 5.35 936.97 0.1 4 50%/Rtd Spd 45.96 2200.00 0.65 1.33 6.02 1102.62 0. 18 10%/Rtd Spd 9.49 2199.50 2.72 14.56 17.11 3455.66 0 .84 100%/Int Spd 112.41 1899.00 0.20 0.37 5.69 725.27 0.06 75%/Int Spd 101.92 1897.50 0.10 0.34 5.51 720.00 0. 05 50% /Int Spd 67.95 1902.00 0.32 0.44 5.71 788.78 0. 07
Low idle 0.82 634.50 12.59 32.98 61.20 4015.34 0.96
C1 Emfac 0.38 5.85 0.12

Extra Data Points
Int load/IS 93.43 1502.00 0.11 0.38 6.58 641.82 0.0 3E - 15

Cummins C8.3 2001 (Ottawa) CARB Diesel Eng Hr/Odometer 8195.00

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr gm/bhphr g/bhp-hr

Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 106.92 2203.50 0.22 1.37 8.38 981.54 0.37 75%/Rtd Spd 81.44 2202.50 0.47 0.99 7.98 1011.25 0. 29 50%/Rtd Spd 54.46 2201.00 0.88 1.24 8.14 1172.24 0. 37 10%/Rtd Spd 10.99 2201.00 3.10 5.96 18.96 3764.49 2 .13 100%/Int Spd 104.92 1899.00 0.24 1.15 8.55 904.76 0.30 75%/Int Spd 77.44 1902.00 0.24 0.67 8.02 912.57 0.2 2 50% /Int Spd 52.46 1900.00 0.71 0.95 7.54 995.84 0. 28
Low idle 1.07 592.00 6.77 11.51 55.46 3048.79 0.37
C1 Emfac 0.48 8.49 0.35

Extra Data Points
Int load/IS 63.95 1602.00 0.31 0.52 8.46 866.40 0.2 3
<100/RS-match lubrizol 89.43 2198.00 0.61 1.15 8.35 1035.70 0.33
<100/IS-match lubrizol 97.43 1899.50 0.28 1.04 8.31 916.53 0.29

Cummins C8.3 2001 (Ottawa) Emulsified Diesel Eng Hr/Odometer 9999.00

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/b hp-hr Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 90.43 2195.00 0.52 0.72 6.11 991.86 0.15 75%/Rtd Spd 81.44 2200.50 0.33 0.75 6.22 1001.94 0. 15 50%/Rtd Spd 53.46 2201.50 0.74 1.08 6.71 1170.14 0. 20 10%/Rtd Spd 11.49 2202.00 2.26 6.60 15.96 3468.46 0 .78 100%/Int Spd 98.92 1902.00 0.41 0.64 6.63 905.22 0 .13 75%/Int Spd 77.44 1899.00 0.27 0.60 6.15 909.89 0.1 3 50% /Int Spd 52.46 1899.50 0.49 0.84 6.17 989.54 0. 13
Low idle 0.90 625.50 14.55 38.40 60.49 4043.04 0.40
C1 Emfac 0.52 6.64 0.16

Extra Data Points
Int load/IS 63.95 1600.00 0.30 0.60 6.33 875.45 0.1 5E - 16 Cummins C8.3 1997 (Capacity) CARB Diesel Not all modes were done due to transmission shiftin g

Modal Average Eng Hr/Odometer 451.00

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/b hp-hr Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC CO NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 124.41 2403.50 0.15 0.31 2.90 1028.8 0 0.20 75%/Rtd Spd 92.93 2398.50 0.24 0.35 3.03 1093.36 0. 17 50%/Rtd Spd 61.95 2398.00 0.33 0.66 3.38 1257.92 0. 26 10%/Rtd Spd 11.99 2403.50 2.15 6.84 10.62 4033.58 1 .04 100%/Int Spd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75%/Int Spd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% /Int Spd 41.47 1800.50 0.41 0.34 4.91 1181.09 0 .15
Low idle 1.24 701.00 3.54 2.81 38.29 4722.73 0.46
C1 Emfac N/A N/A N/A

Cummins C8.3 1997 (Capacity) Emulsified Diesel Not all modes were done due to transmission shiftin g

Modal Average Eng Hr/Odometer 453.00

Test Mode g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr gm/bhphr g/bhp-hr

Percent Load/Speed Load (Hp) RPM THC m CO m NOx CO2 PM 100%/Rated Spd 101.42 2402.00 0.19 0.35 2.55 1094.2 8 0.13 75%/Rtd Spd 92.93 2398.00 0.21 0.43 2.59 1109.79 0. 13 50%/Rtd Spd 61.95 2404.50 0.36 1.26 2.95 1294.14 0. 21 10%/Rtd Spd 11.99 2398.00 3.53 34.47 10.04 4000.38 0.78 100%/Int Spd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75%/Int Spd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% /Int Spd 40.96 993.50 0.48 0.97 4.05 1208.95 0. 11
Low idle 1.01 700.00 6.87 32.37 36.26 5942.74 0.28
C1 Emfac N/A N/A N/A